View Full Version : Different tournament rules?
sheloco
11-18-13, 12:53 PM
In a real-life tournament, everyone shows up at the start of the tournament on even ground. In this tournament, the high-level players/alliances start at the top and stay at the top. Shouldn't we be counting the number of crowns won/lost for the DURATION OF THE TOURNAMENT and not over the life of the player/alliance?
The way things are now, it seems that the rich get richer, the tough get tougher, and the gap grows between the top (long-time and cash-spending) players and the rest of us. Please consider the way tournament winners are determined, and give ALL players a chance at the gems. This could actually help in balancing the game! Thank you!
Nice idea sheloco, but what's to stop a whole bunch of players dropping crowns before the beginnning of the tourney only to recoup them during it? It's open to rigging.
Perhaps a win/loss percentage is the fairest way for all players and alliances. You'd need certain conditions such as a minimum number of battles having to be conducted across the alliance (both offensive and defensive) to qualify, but this would give everybody a fairer chance, regardless of level.
It would reduce the advantage of early adopters and spenders. But don't bet on fairness being considered in this game ;)
MeisterLampee
11-18-13, 02:55 PM
Hi sheloco,
I like your idea very much. Right now the whole game is totally unbalanced and unrealistic. I made a suggestion here, to make the tournament more fair. But I like yours even more!
http://forums.storm8.com/showthread.php?60532-New-Crown-System
Nice idea sheloco, but what's to stop a whole bunch of players dropping crowns before the beginnning of the tourney only to recoup them during it? It's open to rigging.
I do not understand this sentence. What is more fair than 0 crowns for all at the start of a tournament? I find that fantastic. The best will win, and the "Dead monsters" (inactive high lv) fall off the ranking.
It would reduce the advantage of early adopters and spenders. But don't bet on fairness being considered in this game ;)Exactly!
I do not understand this sentence. What is more fair than 0 crowns for all at the start of a tournament? I find that fantastic. The best will win, and the "Dead monsters" (inactive high lv) fall off the ranking.
Exactly!
High level player drops all his crowns prior to the tournament starting and then recoups them all against easy beats during the tourney, thus winning significantly more crowns than another high level player that doesn't drop crowns and has to battle hard against high level peers for the odd crown or two here and there.
Simples.
11343
sheloco
11-18-13, 03:45 PM
I understand that my suggestion was simple and that it can be abused. But some thought should be put into the rules of the tournament. Not that formulas work either, but there should be some way to level the playing field a little better. Obviously, the stronger players will have an automatic advantage in the tournament, as would be the case in real life as well. But the main point is to start us all off at the same point and let us battle from there. Maybe this will get the conversation started at FireMocha, at least. Thanks all!
High level player drops all his crowns prior to the tournament starting and then recoups them all against easy beats during the tourney, thus winning significantly more crowns than another high level player that doesn't drop crowns and has to battle hard against high level peers for the odd crown or two here and there.
Simples.
11343
At least we get to see who's working and who's camping... Nevertheless, any change in the tournament rules is a breath of fresh air in this game.
syllrag
11-18-13, 06:04 PM
I do not understand this sentence. What is more fair than 0 crowns for all at the start of a tournament? I find that fantastic. The best will win, and the "Dead monsters" (inactive high lv) fall off the ranking.
Exactly!
High level player drops all his crowns prior to the tournament starting and then recoups them all against easy beats during the tourney, thus winning significantly more crowns than another high level player that doesn't drop crowns and has to battle hard against high level peers for the odd crown or two here and there.
Simples.
11343
If I get it right, MeisterLampee meant for all crowns to be reset to 0 every tournament ends. So everyone starts with 0 crowns when the tournament begins.
But for that to work, the crown and matchmaking system would need a major overhaul. Winners should get bigger reward than the loser punishment, for example: winner get 40 crowns and loser lose 20 crowns, or winner get 2 crowns and loser lose 1 crown, unless the loser currently has 0 crown.
The matchmaking should be based on level (not crowns) with a certain max level difference, such as 10 levels; for example lv50 should only be matched with opponents min lv40 and max lv60. The level difference should also reflect the crowns reward, for example:lv50 winning against lv60 would get 40 crowns, whereas lv50 winning against lv50 would get 20 crowns, and lv50 winning against lv40 would get 1 crown.
Why matchmaking based on level? Because it is a more accurate measurement to reflect the player's strength, compared to crowns. With the same level of players, there are people who focus on attack by building and upgrading posts, barracks, armory promotion, etc; there are people who focus on defense by building towers; there are people who balance attack and defense. These are their choices based on their own strategies with each strengths and weaknesses.
...Not sure if this is heard by the dev, crossed my fingers...
PS: Though I am not sure if farmers would be fond of this idea, as well as ss burners.
Claytongordon
11-18-13, 07:00 PM
In regards to tournament issues one that I have come across lately is some alliance have feeder alliances and they get them to drop crowns on the main alliance just before the end of the tournament. It is becoming more common. One other factor I see that has a lot of players angry is there are a couple of alliances that have hackers in them and they are keeping them in there for the crowns full well knowing what they are. I would hope that these alliances would do the right thing but that does not seem to be the case.
I would like to see some way of penalizing an alliance for harbouring hackers to make them more vigilant in the future.
dailygamer
11-18-13, 07:37 PM
syllrag, check out my thread "Matching system hopelessly flawed" in Discussions.
Hi sheloco,
I like your idea very much. Right now the whole game is totally unbalanced and unrealistic. I made a suggestion here, to make the tournament more fair. But I like yours even more!
http://forums.storm8.com/showthread.php?60532-New-Crown-System
... What is more fair than 0 crowns for all at the start of a tournament? I find that fantastic. The best will win, and the "Dead monsters" (inactive high lv) fall off the ranking.
Starting everyone at zero would require a major change in how we earn and lose crowns. Right now, we take crowns from opponents when we are victorious, and lose crowns to them in defeat. This forces players to compete for a finite number of crowns across the game. If we are all reset to zero, then targets you beat have no crowns for you to take!
If you revamp the system to allow for an abstract awarding of crowns (instead of having the winner take crowns from the loser), you create the potential for an infinite number of crowns. You will then see players with INSANE crown counts. And wasn't that the problem a few months ago that called for a change in the matching system? FireMocha stripped a large number of crowns from those springtime monsters and gave them gems as compensation, the poor things.
I like YOUR suggestion of expiring crowns more, Lampee.
Maybe everyone could be reset to - say - 100 crowns. But the Level 71 players will then have a feeding frenzy on the rest of us since suddenly we will all be in the same crown range. One giant nasty shark tank; unless the reset comes with a new system that does NOT match opponents based on crowns.
I don't see why level can't be used for matching. Level is determined by development - buildings, upgrades, promotions and so on. Since buildings can't be downgraded or sold and troops can't be demoted, level should be a reliable measure of kingdom strength - a measure that players will not be able to manipulate as they do now with crowns.
MeisterLampee
11-20-13, 09:05 AM
The matchmaking should be based on level (not crowns)
Exactly, since our level expresses the progress of our kingdom. If the lv counting is done properly right now, is another question. :-)
I like YOUR suggestion of expiring crowns more, Lampee.
Well, that's how it is done in Tennis. I find that super. 3 month expiration time for crowns. That's a very easy, clean and fair solution. Do you think a dev will ever see this idea? *scratchmyhead*
But coming back to 0 crowns idea of sheloco: What is the problem when we start all at 0 at tournament day 1. So I fight with my LV5 archers against some low lv. kingdoms. After one day or two we have an appropriate ranking. So high lv will fight against high lv and vice versa. Everything better than we have now!
If you believe FM global will change the matching system, you live in fantasy land.
If you believe FM global will change the matching system, you live in fantasy land.
Miracles! We agree on at least this. They've already changed it once. They're not going back to THAT drawing board.
Maybe everyone could be reset to - say - 100 crowns. But the Level 71 players will then have a feeding frenzy on the rest of us since suddenly we will all be in the same crown range. One giant nasty shark tank; unless the reset comes with a new system that does NOT match opponents based on crowns.
I don't see why level can't be used for matching. Level is determined by development - buildings, upgrades, promotions and so on. Since buildings can't be downgraded or sold and troops can't be demoted, level should be a reliable measure of kingdom strength - a measure that players will not be able to manipulate as they do now with crowns.
Sand, you're all bitter and twisted because you were booted you from an alliance. It was a month ago for goodness sakes. Build a bridge and get over it. Eat some concrete and harden up.
stop acting like a bunny boiler, please. It's getting tired.
Takiofallen
11-20-13, 07:38 PM
Level is not a good way to go. Ever upgrade something and then cancel it??? You keep the upgrade points.
Maybe everyone could be reset to - say - 100 crowns. But the Level 71 players will then have a feeding frenzy on the rest of us since suddenly we will all be in the same crown range. One giant nasty shark tank; unless the reset comes with a new system that does NOT match opponents based on crowns.
I don't see why level can't be used for matching. Level is determined by development - buildings, upgrades, promotions and so on. Since buildings can't be downgraded or sold and troops can't be demoted, level should be a reliable measure of kingdom strength - a measure that players will not be able to manipulate as they do now with crowns.
syllrag
11-20-13, 09:37 PM
Level is not a good way to go. Ever upgrade something and then cancel it??? You keep the upgrade points.
They can recalibrate all our levels according to our buildings and disable the ss burner (upgrade and cancel).
Level is not a good way to go. Ever upgrade something and then cancel it??? You keep the upgrade points.
No, sir, I most certainly HAVEN'T, since one would lose 50% of the original investment upon cancellation. Nor will many players be doing much of that unless they had an alarming excess of resources and deliberately tried to push their levels up without having the corresponding development. Even so, there's nothing to be gained from doing that. No competitive player would want to be fielded with higher levels without the upgrades that would allow them to succeed in battle, so the habit of cancelling upgrades would be tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot.
Then again, I suppose one could create a farm by upgrading only army buildings while repeatedly building/upgrading then cancelling defense buildings. I dunno, Takio, do YOU wanna be a farm?
Level-based battle matching IS a viable option, with loot penalties for attacking lower Royal Houses and loot bonuses for attacking higher ones.
syllrag
11-21-13, 07:36 AM
No, sir, I most certainly HAVEN'T, since one would lose 50% of the original investment upon cancellation. Nor will many players be doing much of that unless they had an alarming excess of resources and deliberately tried to push their levels up without having the corresponding development. Even so, there's nothing to be gained from doing that. No competitive player would want to be fielded with higher levels without the upgrades that would allow them to succeed in battle, so the habit of cancelling upgrades would be tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot.
Then again, I suppose one could create a farm by upgrading only army buildings while repeatedly building/upgrading then cancelling defense buildings. I dunno, Takio, do YOU wanna be a farm?
Level-based battle matching IS a viable option, with loot penalties for attacking lower Royal Houses and loot bonuses for attacking higher ones.
Not really. People do burn ss (upgrade and cancel using ss) to make their base less tempting to get attacked, since sometimes ss can be oversupply and are easier to find especially when you are upgrading walls.
MeisterLampee
11-21-13, 08:39 AM
If you believe FM global will change the matching system, you live in fantasy land.
Hi there.
Well, I have the same opinion like you. But it is interesting talking about a new system. :-)
I personally don't like the idea of loot penalty if your opponents lv is lower. I mean, the only reason to attack a lower opponent is to get loot, since you will gain 0 crowns. And how else should high lv players find the coins to upgrade? So loot penalty sounds brrrrrr.... to me.
Takiofallen
11-21-13, 11:59 AM
Your thinking automatically defaults to someone trying to "Work the system" when my very simply point is that it is flawed . People should not be punished for changing their mind. If FM fixed this then the idea would be more tangible but the current way that things run because of this it is flawed. Now since you believe this is a viable option let me present a simple problem with your idea.
1. If someone decides to upgrade walls and do only promotions as a priority their "level" would be so misleading because you don't receive level points for those things. Promotions are one of the biggest aspects of the game. This is just a simple example of ways to work around your level based system........flawed. Do you need more???
How do you create a level based system where there is a cap on the level? Next thing you know people will complain about the range of the system. "Why are level 67 players matched with level 71 players it's not fair". At the end of the day you cant make everyone happy. In order to have a competent level based system you would have to change the entire game itself. News flash not happening.
The current system works fine. The top 10 have fluctuated so much in the last few days is proof.
2.
No, sir, I most certainly HAVEN'T, since one would lose 50% of the original investment upon cancellation. Nor will many players be doing much of that unless they had an alarming excess of resources and deliberately tried to push their levels up without having the corresponding development. Even so, there's nothing to be gained from doing that. No competitive player would want to be fielded with higher levels without the upgrades that would allow them to succeed in battle, so the habit of cancelling upgrades would be tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot.
Then again, I suppose one could create a farm by upgrading only army buildings while repeatedly building/upgrading then cancelling defense buildings. I dunno, Takio, do YOU wanna be a farm?
Level-based battle matching IS a viable option, with loot penalties for attacking lower Royal Houses and loot bonuses for attacking higher ones.
Your thinking automatically defaults to someone trying to "Work the system" when my very simply point is that it is flawed . People should not be punished for changing their mind. If FM fixed this then the idea would be more tangible but the current way that things run because of this it is flawed. Now since you believe this is a viable option let me present a simple problem with your idea.
1. If someone decides to upgrade walls and do only promotions as a priority their "level" would be so misleading because you don't receive level points for those things. Promotions are one of the biggest aspects of the game. This is just a simple example of ways to work around your level based system........flawed. Do you need more???
How do you create a level based system where there is a cap on the level? Next thing you know people will complain about the range of the system. "Why are level 67 players matched with level 71 players it's not fair". At the end of the day you cant make everyone happy. In order to have a competent level based system you would have to change the entire game itself. News flash not happening.
The current system works fine. The top 10 have fluctuated so much in the last few days is proof.
2.
10 huh? Oh yeah, wow.
I don't know what is a "very simply point." But if players are cancelling because they've changed their minds, it won't be happening very often per player, so the penalty won't have any game-changing significance. If however, players are routinely setting up cancellations, whether to level up or to dump off spellstones, then I maintain that they SHOULD be penalized. You say my thinking defaults to someone trying to work the system? I say yours defaults to someone trying to outsmart the system; and wherever the system has a way to counteract your measures, you protest that it is flawed.
The "simple problem" you present (Gosh, you sure like using the word "simple" when you THINK you're talking down to people, don't you?), is not a problem at all. What if troop promotions don't contribute experience points to your level? The strength of the base you're attacking is in no way impacted by the troops the opponent can train. The system would match you against the buildings that are on the field. THAT is what you're up against. You may argue that it doesn't take your attacking strength into consideration if it's matching by level. True, it won't be directly taking your troop potential into consideration, but indirectly it will, since the level of your Army buildings (armory, barracks and posts) are a fair indication of that potential. Furthermore, if gaining points for EVERYTHING you build, upgrade or promote would make it "more tangible" in your opinion, that would be a relatively small and easy fix; no need to "change the entire game itself."
Players are already complaining about level-mismatch in the current system; only now you don't hear "Why are level 67 players matched with level 71 players..." You hear "Why is a level 71 player allowed to attack a level 21 player who doesn't stand a chance?" That's crown-matching for you. So there's a level cap. So what? When you start off, you'll battle against beginners; when get to the top levels, you'll battle against top-level players. See? I can do simple.
As for the tournament itself, the biggest problem with it is that the same handful of top ***s are competing for the prizes, giving them more free gems each contest, making them even more powerful than those who hope to contend one day. (Let's assume the hopefuls are not ALL buying gems to become tournament contenders the way you are, Takio.) The most fair overhaul of the tournament system would be to have multiple tournament categories - Beginners, Juniors, Seniors & Masters, so that the entire Kingdom Clash population has a prize to shoot for, with the smallest prize going to the Beginners champion and the largest going to the Masters champion. Since the prize is greater for each successive category, players have incentive to move up through the categories. And yes, the categories would be based on ranges of LEVEL.
kittensabc
11-22-13, 11:09 AM
I would like to see a system were crowns are recycled, but I personally don't think the three month system is feasible. In my perfect world, you lose 1% of your crowns per day (e.g someone with 2000 crowns loses 20) and at the end of the day/week the total amount of crowns removed is divided evenly among every player so that the crowns stay in circulation. That way inactive people with huge bases have to play in order to stay competitive while still having a system where crowns stay relatively static.
Chianti
11-22-13, 05:02 PM
Crowns can be used to judge the quality of a player - another aspect used to determine if you want them in your alliance.
However, when it comes to the tournament, they need to add "tournament crowns". The tournament crowns reset to zero at the beginning of each tournament, and you gain them just like you would any other resource. The more you fight and win, the more tournament crowns you have.
Right now, the top 3 alliances aren't "Alliances" per se. They are simply a revolving door. If a player drops below the crown threshold, they are booted. No loyalty, no personal interaction. Once they are booted, another player who does have the required crowns joins. The following day, the same thing happens again.
Tournament crowns should NOT be a visible resource. If they are, they will be exploited just like the current system is being exploited. Alliances built well, with devoted and hard working players will prevail. Alliance with the top ranked players wont necessarily be the ones winning.
This way everyone is on an even scale. An alliance comprised of all level 15 players could potentially win the tournament if they collectively win more battles than an alliance comprised of all level 71 players.
Takiofallen
11-23-13, 02:08 PM
When i gave you the job as my personal mascot i know one of the the requirements were to address me by name. It' was a joke, relax its totally not necessary if you quote me.
Again by your own words and example there in no benefit to "canceling upgrades" to level up In your level matching system. You missed the simple point again. "Players should not be punished for making a mistake". Thats it, thats why its simple. Because your always on the defensive you feel the need to exaggerate the points that people make that don't coincide with yours. It's ok for people to disagree. Don't take it to heart have a drink, see a movie, relax everyone has a opinion and they won't all be the same.
If you think i am talking down to you by using the word simple you have other issues. How is the strength of someones base not impacted by the level of troops attacking??? Do you not understand the mechanics of your own system you are promoting? Let me help you to understand.
Your matched system is in play. I keep promoting troops, RH, and barracks , post and armory. You deiced to be the average player and up grade everything as you go, whatever has the shortest upgrade time. (oh wait guess you'r going to think i'm talking down to you again because i used the word average this time) You will progress in level faster then me because you have more upgraded items. Your troops will be weaker then my troops but your level will be higher which in turn matches me up with weaker players while you are matched up with stronger players. The same players i take down with ease you may struggle with. Now your base will hold up much better then my base but in a game based on resources your at a disadvantage. How is this any different in a whole on the flawed system we use now????
The basic point is that as many have stated before there is no perfect system. Every system will have it's flaws. Adjustments can be made to the current one to improve it but by no means is the one you advocate for perfect which = flawed
OK there are level 71 players attacking level 21 players so what. WHat is the benefit???? There is 1 final goal to this game and its to be and maintain the top spot. (If the goal is anything else don't complain or find a new game to play <-- {general statement no need to take it personal like always}) Smart players find a way to work around it. All of us (yes including you) did and the new ones will to. Level mismatching is more of a problem for crown hunters then anyone else.
As far as the tournament itself the problem is not about the same people battling for the prize. (really have you not checked the leader board its been changing daily. Have you not seen the level 52 bouncing between 1-10) Most of the people at the top have had a serious head start. It's the holding back of the new players thats the problem. (this is why there are so many threads about it many you have added you opinion to) They're already maxed out on everything except walls. So how can you be maxed out on everything except walls and get stronger??? Please elaborate. (yes you can level up walls but CR hunters hold little resources so its not common)
I agree that there should be more then the basic tournaments that exist so we all have an individual chance at free gems, but a change in the system is not necessary.
Also i know you want to assume that i am buying gems to become a tournament contender let me clear your mind.
1. I'm a proud farmer which is way more distasteful to you no need to buy gems outside of work sheds.
2. Even if i was a person who made that choice whats the problem? Do you hate people who have the money to do so?(many do ) If they work in there real life for it whats the problem? don't hate, participate.
3. Stop playing victim all the time is classless for a woman. You spend to much time writing thesis on this forum to do so.
10 huh? Oh yeah, wow.
don't know what is a "very simply point." But if players are cancelling because they've changed their minds, it won't be happening very often per player, so the penalty won't have any game-changing significance. If however, players are routinely setting up cancellations, whether to level up or to dump off spellstones, then I maintain that they SHOULD be penalized. You say my thinking defaults to someone trying to work the system? I say yours defaults to someone trying to outsmart the system; and wherever the system has a way to counteract your measures, you protest that it is flawed.
The "simple problem" you present (Gosh, you sure like using the word "simple" when you THINK you're talking down to people, don't you?), is not a problem at all. What if troop promotions don't contribute experience points to your level? The strength of the base you're attacking is in no way impacted by the troops the opponent can train. The system would match you against the buildings that are on the field. THAT is what you're up against. You may argue that it doesn't take your attacking strength into consideration if it's matching by level. True, it won't be directly taking your troop potential into consideration, but indirectly it will, since the level of your Army buildings (armory, barracks and posts) are a fair indication of that potential. Furthermore, if gaining points for EVERYTHING you build, upgrade or promote would make it "more tangible" in your opinion, that would be a relatively small and easy fix; no need to "change the entire game itself."
Players are already complaining about level-mismatch in the current system; only now you don't hear "Why are level 67 players matched with level 71 players..." You hear "Why is a level 71 player allowed to attack a level 21 player who doesn't stand a chance?" That's crown-matching for you. So there's a level cap. So what? When you start off, you'll battle against beginners; when get to the top levels, you'll battle against top-level players. See? I can do simple.
As for the tournament itself, the biggest problem with it is that the same handful of top ***s are competing for the prizes, giving them more free gems each contest, making them even more powerful than those who hope to contend one day. (Let's assume the hopefuls are not ALL buying gems to become tournament contenders the way you are, Takio.) The most fair overhaul of the tournament system would be to have multiple tournament categories - Beginners, Juniors, Seniors & Masters, so that the entire Kingdom Clash population has a prize to shoot for, with the smallest prize going to the Beginners champion and the largest going to the Masters champion. Since the prize is greater for each successive category, players have incentive to move up through the categories. And yes, the categories would be based on ranges of LEVEL.
Takiofallen
11-23-13, 02:08 PM
Then i go and write one hahahaha
When i gave you the job as my personal mascot i know one of the the requirements were to address me by name. It' was a joke, relax its totally not necessary if you quote me.
Again by your own words and example there in no benefit to "canceling upgrades" to level up In your level matching system. You missed the simple point again. "Players should not be punished for making a mistake". Thats it, thats why its simple. Because your always on the defensive you feel the need to exaggerate the points that people make that don't coincide with yours. It's ok for people to disagree. Don't take it to heart have a drink, see a movie, relax everyone has a opinion and they won't all be the same.
If you think i am talking down to you by using the word simple you have other issues. How is the strength of someones base not impacted by the level of troops attacking??? Do you not understand the mechanics of your own system you are promoting? Let me help you to understand.
Your matched system is in play. I keep promoting troops, RH, and barracks , post and armory. You deiced to be the average player and up grade everything as you go, whatever has the shortest upgrade time. (oh wait guess you'r going to think i'm talking down to you again because i used the word average this time) You will progress in level faster then me because you have more upgraded items. Your troops will be weaker then my troops but your level will be higher which in turn matches me up with weaker players while you are matched up with stronger players. The same players i take down with ease you may struggle with. Now your base will hold up much better then my base but in a game based on resources your at a disadvantage. How is this any different in a whole on the flawed system we use now????
The basic point is that as many have stated before there is no perfect system. Every system will have it's flaws. Adjustments can be made to the current one to improve it but by no means is the one you advocate for perfect which = flawed
OK there are level 71 players attacking level 21 players so what. WHat is the benefit???? There is 1 final goal to this game and its to be and maintain the top spot. (If the goal is anything else don't complain or find a new game to play <-- {general statement no need to take it personal like always}) Smart players find a way to work around it. All of us (yes including you) did and the new ones will to. Level mismatching is more of a problem for crown hunters then anyone else.
As far as the tournament itself the problem is not about the same people battling for the prize. (really have you not checked the leader board its been changing daily. Have you not seen the level 52 bouncing between 1-10) Most of the people at the top have had a serious head start. It's the holding back of the new players thats the problem. (this is why there are so many threads about it many you have added you opinion to) They're already maxed out on everything except walls. So how can you be maxed out on everything except walls and get stronger??? Please elaborate. (yes you can level up walls but CR hunters hold little resources so its not common)
I agree that there should be more then the basic tournaments that exist so we all have an individual chance at free gems, but a change in the system is not necessary.
Also i know you want to assume that i am buying gems to become a tournament contender let me clear your mind.
1. I'm a proud farmer which is way more distasteful to you no need to buy gems outside of work sheds.
2. Even if i was a person who made that choice whats the problem? Do you hate people who have the money to do so?(many do ) If they work in there real life for it whats the problem? don't hate, participate.
3. Stop playing victim all the time is classless for a woman. You spend to much time writing thesis on this forum to do so.
Please remember that while debating the merits/flaws of different theories/systems it is ok to point out issues with the logic of an argument. It is not ok to direct attacks/sleights/slurs/snide comments etc at another member.
Takiofallen, I won't bother to quote your long rambling response above. One can hardly follow what you are getting at, gamewise, so I must confess to not having read through the entirety of it. As for tackling your argument point by point, that is a valid and recognized debating choice.
I said the strength of the base you're attacking is in no way impacted by the troops the opponent can train. I didn't say it wasn't impacted by YOUR troops! Come on now.
I must also point out that there is no compulsion to choose between developing one's attack versus one's defense, since they do not compete for the same currency. The only thing they compete for are worksheds. If a player chooses to build up only Army buildings, the surplus of coins will likely urge the player to upgrade Defense buildings if wall upgrades are maxed out. Likewise, the player who wants to devote herself to Defense upgrades will find herself with an overload of spellstone and will likely use it to promote troops (which don't need a crew) or Army buildings if she can't get rid of the stones. The player who would constantly drop the stones into an Army building upgrade then cancel just to get rid of stones is rare.
I won't touch upon the rest of your comments. It should be clear enough to any reader that things are unraveling there.
Crowns can be used to judge the quality of a player - another aspect used to determine if you want them in your alliance.
However, when it comes to the tournament, they need to add "tournament crowns". The tournament crowns reset to zero at the beginning of each tournament, and you gain them just like you would any other resource. The more you fight and win, the more tournament crowns you have.
Right now, the top 3 alliances aren't "Alliances" per se. They are simply a revolving door. If a player drops below the crown threshold, they are booted. No loyalty, no personal interaction. Once they are booted, another player who does have the required crowns joins. The following day, the same thing happens again.
Tournament crowns should NOT be a visible resource. If they are, they will be exploited just like the current system is being exploited. Alliances built well, with devoted and hard working players will prevail. Alliance with the top ranked players wont necessarily be the ones winning.
This way everyone is on an even scale. An alliance comprised of all level 15 players could potentially win the tournament if they collectively win more battles than an alliance comprised of all level 71 players.
I like the idea of tournament crowns that are separate from the ongoing cumulative crown count. I also see the benefit of them being NOT visible to players, but many will complain about lack of transparency. Most players want to SEE for themselves where they stand against each other as the tournament progresses. But as long as the tournament points or crowns are visible, the alliance tournament will remain nothing more than jostling for members as you've described. UNLESS, alliances are banned from changing membership during the tournament.
But how might that be implemented? Perhaps if alliances were required to submit entry to each tournament by a stated deadline. The vast majority of alliances are not contenders under the current one-tournament system. If only entrants are considered for the contest, then contesting alliances could have their memberships frozen from the time of entry until the tournament ends. That way, players cannot jump from one contesting alliance to another. The non-contesting alliances, which would consist of most players, would not be subject to this membership freeze.
Takiofallen
11-24-13, 12:48 PM
Thanks for not quoting me and addressing me accordingly. You confess to not having read through the entirety of the post in the beginning but yet at the end say you won't "touch" upon the rest of my comments you confess to not have not read. ummmmmm yeah. What you said verbatim was (The strength of the base you're attacking is in no way impacted by the troops the opponent can train. The system would match you against the buildings that are on the field. THAT is what you're up against.) That is not how your level based matching system works because you are not matched by building you match by level. Yes the strength of the base you attack in not affected by how you raised your troops but your level is and in a level based matching system thats what matters. Am i wrong???? Again we will agree to disagree see you on the battle field .QUOTE=sand;788909]Takiofallen, I won't bother to quote your long rambling response above. One can hardly follow what you are getting at, gamewise, so I must confess to not having read through the entirety of it. As for tackling your argument point by point, that is a valid and recognized debating choice.
I said the strength of the base you're attacking is in no way impacted by the troops the opponent can train. I didn't say it wasn't impacted by YOUR troops! Come on now.
I must also point out that there is no compulsion to choose between developing one's attack versus one's defense, since they do not compete for the same currency. The only thing they compete for are worksheds. If a player chooses to build up only Army buildings, the surplus of coins will likely urge the player to upgrade Defense buildings if wall upgrades are maxed out. Likewise, the player who wants to devote herself to Defense upgrades will find herself with an overload of spellstone and will likely use it to promote troops (which don't need a crew) or Army buildings if she can't get rid of the stones. The player who would constantly drop the stones into an Army building upgrade then cancel just to get rid of stones is rare.
I won't touch upon the rest of your comments. It should be clear enough to any reader that things are unraveling there.[/QUOTE]
jacksonmcse
11-24-13, 05:13 PM
Looking at successful games in the past, the fact that this game chooses to change the rules of the entire system, no longer in beta, instead of introducing new factors that could do the same thing and still stay true to the game, speaks volumes of the maturity of the dev teams and the lack of professionalism or simple clear thinking.
tiedyetim
11-24-13, 05:58 PM
My contribution: I disagree.
Sorry that was so long.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.